Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (182115)	2/5/2004 7:34:30 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1578015

DR, Welcome back. You been in rehab, in sympathy with your buddy? John

To: i-node who wrote (182115)	2/5/2004 10:12:15 AM
From: mph	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578015

Limbaugh was/is nothing but an entertainer. Clinton was the POTUS. One would think a higher standard should apply to the latter. What is amusing to me in this political season is the constant barrage of "liar liar pants on fire" allegations floating around, and in particular, emanating from the Left. It would therefore appear that, in order to be consistent, the detractors of both Clinton and Bush should be in the same camp. After all, the theme is the same. ("You lied".) Funny how that isn't so. What you usually hear is that Clinton's lies dealt with sex and his private life. Not the point, however. The point was lying under oath, which is perjury. That's why he was ultimately suspended from the practice of law as well. Remember what happened to Mark Furman after the O.J. trial. He was prosecuted for perjury because he lied about having used the "N" word. It was, and is, my personal belief that that prosecution should never have occurred because I find it doubtful that whether Furman said that word within the prior 10 years was really material to the issues in the trial. (The crime of perjury requires lies on material issues in the proceedings.) In any case, Clinton's lies in the Jones matter were material. I've always said he should have hired me to defend him. I could see that his lawyers were taking the wrong approach in that matter.<g>( I've defended lots of men in sex harassment cases.) The minute I saw him wag his finger and refer to Lewiniski as that woman, I both knew he had had an affair with her and that he was getting very bad advice.

To: i-node who wrote (182115)	2/5/2004 12:33:15 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1578015

It is important to remember, however, that Limbaugh's indiscretion doesn't threaten the entire basis for our system of civil litigation, whereas Clinton's perjury did, in effect, give every perjurer in the future the perfect out -- "Clinton did it, so why can't I?" Clinton supporters have never quite gotten the concept, so I doubt you will, either. But for many of us, it IS an important one. I see........in the world according to DR, playing fast and loose with medical records and buying drugs illegally is the same as lying about a BJ. Right! LOL! Its a left wing conspiracy!